A story that really frosts me is rare, but this (recurring) one finally tripped the wire. Consider this push for Totalitarianism Lite as Exhibit A in the presentation of why unelected world governments, especially those populated by despots, are a danger to free humanity:
A global summit scheduled in December may result in a proposal to put the Internet under United Nations control — an idea that has met solid resistance from the United States....The World Summit on the Information Society, sponsored by the International Telecommunications Union, the United Nations' key agency on telecommunications, will bring together more than 50 heads of state, along with an expected 5,000 to 6,000 government, business and non-profit representatives from across the globe to discuss in part "the yawning telecommunications gap between emerging economies and the developed world."
"Emerging economies"? Is that a euphemism for entire nations held hostage by jackbooted regimes or the rabble of backwards, dysfunctionally corrupt oligarchies - so more or less a buzzword replacement for "developing countries"? Why yes, I believe it is:
The effort for global control of the Internet is reportedly led by China, which allows its own citizens online access, but it is tightly controlled by a giant firewall and monitored by government surveillance.China has so far been joined in its efforts by representatives of Syria, Egypt, Vietnam and South Africa, said Ronald Koven, European representative for the World Press Freedom Committee, an international media watchdog based in the United States. Other reports indicate that Russia, India, Saudi Arabia and Brazil may be on board, too.
What a diverse action committee! Three democracies, two of them with room for improvement on accommodating civil rights; a post-Communist, statist republic; and four outright dictatorships. Henhouse - check. Wolves - check, check, check and check.
They say fewer than 3 percent of Africans can even access telecommunications of any kind.
They say fewer than 17 percent of African nations allow access to the ballot box without a hassle, while 48 percent withhold the right to vote altogether. Doesn't it follow, then, that the entire region won't exactly present many stable investments to telecommunications companies?
Currently, the International Corporation of Assigned Network and Numbers, a non-profit corporation with an international board of directors, manages Internet Protocol space allocation, domain names and root server system functions. It does not have content or security control functions.Critics of the global Internet idea say certain nations like China want to take away ICANN’s duties and place them under governmental auspices, along with increased control over security and content, placing freedom of press and individual freedom of expression at serious risk.
“Those governments don’t have any democracy or free speech, it’s dangerous and we’re trying to stop it,” said Julio Munoz, executive director of the Inter American Press Association in Miami. "Of course we are concerned they will try to manipulate the free flow of information."
Munoz's comments carry a certain comfort with them, especially since this isn't the first would-be usurpation of free media:
“We’re going to send a delegation there — to try and defend the press,” said Munoz, who recalled previously unsuccessful attempts in the 1970s and 1980s for U.N.-led media standards.
Nevertheless, let's give it a good rolling of the eyes. While we're at it, take a good look at the United Nations: elected leaders and strongmen in the same room, fundamentally at odds, deferring to non-representation and subjecting sovereign, self-governed nations to arbitrary demands of the least common denominators.
President Bush is not scheduled to attend the summit, which will be followed by another meeting in Tunisia in November 2005.
The choice of location must have symbolic intent, as there is no freedom of speech in Tunisia.
ADDING IMPRISONMENT TO INSULT AND INJURY: Could China's motives be any more transparent?